Home
Archive
Columnists
Video
Blogs
Discuss
About
Search
Donate
Advertise
Advertisement
Advertisement
Advertisement
Advertisement
Register to Vote: Rock the Vote, powered by Working Assets Wireless
Advertisement
  • AlterNetYour turn

Support AlterNet
Do you value the information you're getting from AlterNet? Please show your support with a tax-deductible donation.


Feedback
Tell us how we're doing.

Earth to media: America went Democratic

Posted by Cenk Uygur at 9:52 AM on December 6, 2006.


35-0 is not a bi-partisan result...

I keep reading in the mainstream press about how the 2006 election was about the American electorate wanting more bipartisanship. Really? Based on what?

I haven't seen any exit polls from the elections that showed that anyone voted based on bipartisanship or centrism. I have seen many polls that said they voted based on corruption, Iraq and change.

But the real proof is in the numbers...

Twenty-nine House seats and six Senate seats changed from Republican to Democrat. None changed from Democrat to Republican. Not one.

That's not bipartisanship. That's a 35-0 blowout.

The American people spoke loud and clear - we want to go in the direction of the Democrats. There were no mixed messages about the Democrats going halfway to meet the Republicans. If anyone has to move towards the middle it is clearly the Republicans.

I don't want to see one more "news" story about how the Democrats should move toward the Republicans or meet them halfway because that's what "people" want. What people? The voters were clear and that is not what they said.

This would seem to be an ironic post since I am a centrist. I want the country to be in the center. And I think the press is also quite centrist and their inclination is to try to bring the country into the center. This is partly because of their neutrality fetish but partly because they have a sense of where the American people stand generally.

But here is the big difference. I recognize that the center is NOT between where the Democrats and the Republicans stand now. The center has stayed the same but both political parties have moved way to the right. So, now the center stands squarely where the Democratic Party is currently. That's partly why many liberal activists complain about the Democratic Party these days.

You know who understands this best? The American people. That's why they gave the Democrats the 35-0 victory last month. Because the Democrats are now exactly in the center, where the American people want to be.

This is why I have written in the past that the American people are not dumb, as many claim, but they are a little slow sometimes. In time, they know exactly where they want to be and always find a way to punish extremism and get back to the sensible center.

Unfortunately, the press is a lot slower. The people have spoken and they still haven't heard it. They are still under the delusion that the midpoint must be between the two parties and have not noticed the political landscape shift underneath them.

I have made the sports analogy before on media neutrality, but it is perfectly fitting here. It would be unacceptable for sports journalists to have the same kind of nonsense neutrality fixation that political news coverage has these days. You can't say the Cowboys and Redskins were both just as good if the Cowboys blew out the Redskins. You have to report the actual score.

Saying the Cowboys won doesn't mean you have a Cowboys bias. It means you watched the game. In this case, I watched the 2006 elections. The Democrats won 35-0. Reporting anything other than that is misleading at best. There was no tie -- or bipartisanship -- here. Stop pretending there was and report the damn score, please.

Digg!

Cenk Uygur is co-host of The Young Turks, the new morning show for Air America Radio, 6-9AM ET.


Black Republican Gets Enraged Over Katrina at RNC
Founder of HipHopRepublicans becomes violent with Cenk.
September 4, 2008.
Bush Destroying the Environment on His Way Out
From oil drilling to the Endangered Species Act, Bush is dooming our planet.
August 13, 2008.
White House Ordered CIA Forgeries to Wage Iraq War
Ron Suskind's new book offers the smoking gun on Bush admin's deception.
August 6, 2008.
Obama Gets "the Idea" of America
Breaking down Obama's major address in Berlin, Germany.
July 25, 2008.
John McCain Calls Social Security an "Absolute Disgrace"
Not in an I-want-to-make-it- better way, but more in a I-get-this-about-as-much-as-I-get- the-internet way.
July 11, 2008.

Comments Turn comments off sitewide Give us feedback »
Comments closed.
The comments for this story have been closed. Thank you to everyone who participated.
View:
Center?
Posted by: oregoncharles on Dec 6, 2006 10:10 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
No, the Democrats do not represent the center, or at least the majority.

If the polls are to be trusted at all, a majority of Americans support a whole laundry list of liberal agenda items that the Democrats, with a few honorable exceptions I already know about, do not actively push, and regularly oppose.

Why would they do that? Why would they pass up all those votes that are just going begging? Because they've been BOUGHT, and their owners don't want that liberal agenda. Big money doesn't want universal health care (though that may be changing), or fair trade, or effective environmental protection, or consumer or worker protections, because all of those would cost them money, and they never have enough.

So, yes, liberals do criticize the Democrats for really being Republicans (which is exactly what you just said), and for letting down the American people. OK, for being paid-for crooks. The parties certainly did move way to the right, even farther than you think.

But on the whole, I appreciate your cogent and passionate critiques of the current regime. Thanks for your efforts, and someday we'll find the REAL center, way to your left.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

Lets not forget ...
Posted by: JoshuaLudd on Dec 6, 2006 10:11 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
...how pliant and compliant the media has been to the Bush admin. This is just more of their line to try to keep Bush relevant in some way.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

sports analogies
Posted by: mr. joshua on Dec 6, 2006 1:14 PM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
It would be unacceptable for sports journalists to have the same kind of nonsense neutrality fixation that political news coverage has these days.

Excellent point! Here's a related tidbit from Alternet's Dec. 2 article on Keith Olberman:

Olbermann credits sportscasting for his candid and historical-minded approach. "In sports, if a center-fielder drops the fly ball, you can't pretend he didn't," he says. "There's also an awareness of patterns, a relationship between what has gone before and what is to come that is so strong in sports coverage that doesn't seem to be there in news reporting."

I've never been much into sports, and even less into sports journalism, but these types of sentiments are giving me a sincere appreciation for the things that sports journalism does well.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

No, "The American People" aren't dumb
Posted by: eddie torres on Dec 6, 2006 1:33 PM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
They're just too poor. I mean, how do you expect to "lead" people who have little or no net worth? They can't even get a table at The Capital Grille, for God's sake. And they smell bad. That's why the Democratic leadership doesn't stand anywhere near them.

Now, Chris Matthews - there's someone you can talk to. And he can get a corner table at Sweetwater Tavern with 5 minutes notice.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

What "bipartisanship" really means
Posted by: Rune on Dec 6, 2006 9:05 PM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
When the press says the election was a call for bipartisanship, I think they are pointing out that there is still a Republican in the White House that the Democratic majority in the Congress still must deal with. I think Nancy Pelosi threw them off by saying impeachment was off the table as the final results in the Senate were dribbling in. If we just show a little focus on impeachment--no, make that a loud an unending focus on impeachment--I'm sure they'll get over their misperception.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

High Expectations
Posted by: robmikejas on Dec 7, 2006 8:58 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
In spite of the overwhelming dictate of the American people in the November elections, the MSM has ignored this mandate and has questioned and belittled the Democrats on a daily basis. Anyone who pays attention to the media can tell you that they continue to carry Bush's water and fawn over his insane policies. Progressive thought and action are stymied right out of the box with Pelosi's "no impeachment" statement and the lack of will to bring the troops home immediately. Corporate/Governmental rule continues to make the American people slaves to the economic dysfunction in Iraq and America itself. Bless the decline of the Bush dynasty, but watch your back...The corporate terrorists are still picking your pockets and killing your children.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

Pelosi can "say' no impeachment, but...
Posted by: carcinoid112 on Dec 7, 2006 6:46 PM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
All the congress has to do is investigate. Upon the finding of crime committed, impeachment doesn't need to be brought up, it will be manditory.

Go get 'em, Henry Waxman!!

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]